Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Bwilkins

FINAL (31/30/10); closed by EVula at 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Bwilkins (talk · contribs) – More from the "I already thought they were an admin" group. Has always been a source of information and help for me. Has been even keeled enough to chip-in at WP:WQA and keep others from loosing their cool. Seems like he'd be a big help as an admin. Padillah (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I am pleased and honoured to accept this nomination for an activity that can benefit not only Wikipedia and its editors, but also the users of the English Wikipedia as a whole. Note: I mean that ADMINS AS A WHOLE benefit Wikipedia, not just me

I started out editing a single article, then a couple. I then created a the skeleton of a "most wanted article" which has since been expanded by many editors. I later installed Twinkle, and started NPP and welcoming users. Then I went to town on stub creation. Later, I wrote a far better brand new article from the "most wanted articles" list. Then I installed AWB and have fixed a lot of spelling, double-words, and other problems with articles. I learn a skill, and move forward. Now, here I am, and plan on building my skills starting with what I know, and building incrementally (although quickly) to assist the project in any way possible. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I have been very involved in WP:WQA for some time now, and have also been involved in assiting with WP:ANI incidents. As such, my primary plan is to continue to help assist with disputes overall; saying "yes, that person used a racist comment towards you ... now go talk to someone else thanks" and "you're right, that person just vandalized the crap out of that page, now please visit this location for a resolution" (which are the common type of issues I deal with on a daily basis) is far better served by having the Wikipedia tools to use when discussion/mediation/moderation are no longer effective. I also intend to help with usernames for Admin attention as an offensive username can be just as damaging to the project as Vandalism (which of course I will also keep an eye on), will. In the last few months, I have taken great interest in closing AfD's - I have done a number of non-admin closures based on pure common sense, and weighing the !votes very carefully. Indeed, the few closes that became "controvertial" were not so much the close, but that I, a lowly editor had closed them - by having the tools, I will continue to use this common sense approach to closures of all kinds. Just like all of my Wikipedia career, I will begin with the things I know (my strengths), then learn new skills in order to expand my repertoire of admin activities until I am covering as much of the spectrum as I can.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My answer to this has recently changed: overall, I think the assistance in investigating and mediating issues in WP:WQA has been extremely useful to the project as a whole. Acting calm, rational, and according to a clear set process has helped solve many issues before additional admin action was required keeps Wikipedia working. I am also pleased with the creation of a whole whack of stubs related to both the Music of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also with islands and communities of Trinidad and Tobago - when I find redlinks, I often take the opportunity to do some original basic research, and start the building of an encylopedic article - this is, after all, the goal of Wikipedia. These two contributions are laudable goals. However, the other day I was thanked for helping to make a recently deceased editor happy. The editor was brand new, and had started to assist right away on an article I was recreating from scratch. All I did was throw up a nice welcome template, and actually thank them for their contributions. I knew nothing of their age, or of their disabilities - they were an editor who helped from the start. Apparently, this had made a positive impact on a new editor, and they took great enjoyment from their brief career in Wikipedia. Indeed, it's amazing how friendliness and thanks can benefit editors as a whole.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: When you contribute to WQA, and occasionally do NPP, plus close AfD's, you're bound to have occasional conflicts - how we deal with them (and learn from them) is the true show of a person's abilities. Personally, I am very keen on asking advice from trusted souces when a conflict arises. For example, one person's userpage still accuses me of being racist (even though they have no idea of my ethnic background) because they completely created a new meaning for a word, so as to turn in into something quite um, "fun", that then involved a few tit-for-tat warnings, and a couple of reversions of things off usertalk pages before I then went and asked for advice. Another situation actually ended up taking me to WP:ANI - an editor did not like/understand my reply in an earlier ANI, so they challenged me on my talkpage. I clearly tried to articulate what I meant, at which point I was attacked back in ANI. I then respectfully asked the editor to stop posting on my talkpage, and if they had issues with my "supposed incivility" for no longer responding to him, then they should to go to WQA. The editor then raised a new ANI instead, which was quick quickly quashed. My most recent incident involves a comment I made in WQA, that another editor twisted to their own meaning. Another editor has decided that I am responsible for that editor's out-of-context use of my comment, and wants to take me to mediation. I have politely declined a few times, while trying to point them in the right direction. The remnants of that remain on my talkpage as we speak. I will continue to help people as long as they want to be helped. I will continue to ask advice of others where needed. I will continue to act in a calm, rational manner - looking at the ABC concept (see User:Bwilkins for the ABC model) in any and all "altercations"

Optional question from Cool3

4. I've looked through all your contributions back to January on AfD, and I've found a lot of non-admin closures, but not a single !vote in a discussion (it's quite possible I just missed something though). Why do you close so many AfDs without commenting in any? Also, I imagine that you're fairly familiar with Wikipedia:Non-admin closure which suggests that non-admins restrict themselves to "Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep", "speedy keep", or "pure housekeeping" closures, but I've found a lot of relatively contentious closes, many of which you closed as no consensus. Do you feel that it's generally appropriate for non-administrators to close such AfDs? Why or why not?

A good question, that brings up current issues regarding AfD's as a whole. Indeed, I have commented widely at AfD - one of the ones I commented on (Dinosaur Island (2002 film)) I actually took as a personal goal to rescue from deletion, which was successful. Personally, I look very carefully at the arguements in an AfD (or in any question of consensus). That said, 5 well-argued deletes vs 3 well-argued keeps means (in my mind) "no consensus to delete". I do believe that 1 of the non-admin closures I did went to Deletion review - not because the decision was controvertial, it was because (as had been admitted on my talkpage) they simply disagreed with non-admin closures - indeed, this was another situation where I called on the assistance of an admin to verify my work/decision. Closing a very close !vote as "no consensus" is certainly not a controvertial close - it would fall into the "housekeeping". However, closing that same one any other way would be wrong. Again, this is all based on the strengths of the arguements. - BMW

A (strictly optional) question from Tempodivalse:

5. What is your understanding of consensus? How do you determine when consensus does or does not exist?

I have somewhat answered this above, as the concept of consensus applies quite importantly in AfD's. In article-specific "consensus", the measuring stick may be a little different. The strength of arguements is always important. However, in the case of an article change, 6 in favour of the change versus 3 in favour of keeping the same may be determined to be consensus to change. - BMW

Optional question from Tavix:

6. During your stay at Wikipedia it seems that you have gotten into a lot of conflicts with other users. Can you explain why you feel that is and how you would go about resolving conflicts as an administrator?

Although optional (and from the editor mentioned in my discussion above), I will happily respond. It has been said already by others that I work in the most "contentious and thankless" areas. Through my own stubbornness I inherently try to resolve a problem or answer a question in the most humane way possible until it is, indeed, resolved. That leaves me open to significant attacks, entirely false statements, and the ability to take my written words out of context. In ANI, I have always argued for resolutions in ways that did not require the use of admin tools, as blocks need be last resorts in the majority of cases (by the way, I have never told anyone to "fuck off", I have, however, asked 2 separate people (who chose not to read) to leave me alone, which is my right, which I sadly have had to use twice. In both cases, this has been because when I answered their questions fully, they didn't like the answers, so chose to attack me for those very answers. You can only help people who want to be helped. BMW

7. Could you explain your stance on WP:ASF and WP:CIVIL?

Is WP:ASF really the one you want an answer to? WP:CIVIL is key to Wikipedia, which is why I work my butt off in WQA trying to resolve issues, and in ANI trying to prevent blocks and focussing on civility in all interactions there. BMW

(I believe) optional question from User:Peter Isotalo

8. BMW, I was not happy with your involvement in the dispute I recently had with User:Montanabw (and indirectly parts of WP:EQUINE). My feelings are still that you came down very hard on me (see here and here) while wholly ignoring any and all wrong-doing from the other party. Would you like to comment this? Peter ^Isotalo 07:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I appreciate you asking, and as much as I do not want to rehash that entire argument, and the diffs that you provide are extremely late in the entire discussion following WQA and then a mediation attempt (that I was only commenting on as an uninvolved neutral party). In that entire discussion, no matter how many times different people (including neutral people) provided an explanation, you 100% disagreed, and in fact became increasingly hostile towards one specific editor. You truly held that editor up to different standards, and even when asked to stop attacking your further attacks continued. Perhaps quoting someone else's use of an expletive was out of sincere frustration, but I didn't have a WP:TROUT handy, and I'm not sure you would have got that reference then if I did. Your second diff, you accused me of commenting in alater situation solely based on previous experience, so I politely let you know how I had done the investigation. - BMW

Optional question from DGG (talk):

9. Could you comment on the relative virtues of relisting an AfD that has gotten a relatively little but approximately evenly divided attention, and closing it as non-consensus? We seem to be relisting a good deal more lately, and I'd like to know how you see it. DGG (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well DGG, let's face it - none of us here are interested in every single topic that has an article on Wikipedia. Some topics garner very little specialized interest. Sometimes those who know an area stumble across an article and AfD it ... there are therefore pretty poor odds that the other few that have an interest will stumble across the AfD within the short timeframe that an AfD runs. Therefore in some cases (especially if only 1 or 2 comments have been made), it may be better to relist certain AfD's for another few days. (Now, if a few of of my trusted advisors were to recommend the "close as no consensus" idea in its place, then I'd better get busy!) - BMW

General comments

• Links for Bwilkins: Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Bwilkins can be found here.
• Promote Bwilkins (bureaucrats only)
• Ya know, and maybe I'm out of line for posting this, but it seems to me that people that work in the most difficult areas tend to draw the most criticisms. Now I don't have any dogs in this fight, in fact, I don't believe that BMW has ever once replied to a single message I've left, at least not directly. But I'm looking at a person who volunteers their time to work in one of the most contentious areas of Wikipedia extant, WP:WQA. That means that the most irate, upset, irrational editors imaginable come knocking on the door with complaints about content, policy, and other editors. No rules, no admins holding blocks over anyone's head, just a no-holds-barred bickering session. Sometimes in order to settle a situation, you need to grab the most aggressive person in the debate, and try to pull them off the pack. That means you're gonna get a black eye on many occasions. Who among us could take the lashings that are dished out on a daily basis without occasionally being blunt about your thoughts? It's easy to cast stones at a glass house when you live in a quiet area, but it's a far more difficult task to tackle the hard chores. (end of rant, sorry) — Ched :  ?  23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

On the incident mentioned by Goodmorningworld in the NEUTRAL section

It is, indeed, interesting that a "neutral" !vote, and diff's taken well out of context is being quoted by "oppose" !votes, even though the poster has later implored people not to,so I feel I must address it.

• To mark an issue "resolved" before it is actually anywhere close to being resolved is highly inappropriate in ANI, WQA, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Someone approached WQA with an issue - an issue serious enough that they felt it necessary to ask for help. The primary cause of their concern continued to not only perform the same uncivil actions, but actually justified their uncivil actions. For this reason, it was necessary to keep the WQA going, instead of taking it to ANI.
• I certainly never asked an admin to come in and issue blocks - blocks are a last resort. What I requested was a neutral admin to look at things with a new set of eyes.
• GMW then suggests that I followed the arguement to that same admin's talkpage. First, my visit to that admin's talk page was a long time after the original altercation in WQA, and second I visited that admin's talkpage for advice on a totally different matter, and saw numerous editors (some unrelated to this incident) "ganging up" on them - I merely tried to break up the riot as any of us should.
• Please note that slight sarcasm will follow: If you have any problems with me insisting on people NOT justifying their incivility, and if you're ok with editors ganging up on our admins, then please continue with the OPPOSE !votes based on that specific section. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to interject but there's more than a few problems with GMW's representation of the facts. Not the least of which is they use the same diff and refutation twice to make it look as if BMW argues a point and refutes them twice. It's pretty blatant and I'm saddened by the fact that so many users have taken up that set of diffs without (I can only assume, from the blatant misquotes and missteps) reading them. I have refuted almost all of the assertions made on the talk page if anyone cares to read what happened. Padillah (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

On the BLP "incident"

Yes, the discussion was on ANI. It was related to the Octomom. I'm sure people here watch Oprah, read the NY Times, read Newsweek, watch any number of daytime TV talkshows, read any number of newspapers both online and print. It doesn't take much research to find my exact comments being used in these - many of which are considered by Wikipedia to be Reliable Sources. The important part is this: the article about her was being considered for deletion, and my comment was attempting to say "even though I have personal dislike for the subject matter, I would never allow that to sway the concept that the article belongs on Wikipedia" - this is something that all of us need to remember. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is one of the reasons I opposed, allow me to comment on this. A few remarks: 1) If it "doesn't take much research" I'd like to see links to the reliable sources that called this woman a "messed-up idiot" too. 2) Even if they do exist, that is still no reason to use the same terminology in a public discussion. Let alone an excuse. 3) I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that all of us need to remember that calling someone a messed-up idiot is shorthand for "I have a personal dislike for the subject but an article about him/her does belong on Wikipedia"? Am I missing something? Yintaɳ  (formerly known as Channel R) 15:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! Please don't misunderstand: there are many editors who PROD or AfD an article because they don't like the subject matter. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never an appropriate reason to undo an edit, delete an article, or other similar actions. It was a generic warning to all of us who edit at the English Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that part up. Yintaɳ  16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Bwilkins before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those who prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • X!'s edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Absolutely. Polite, helpful, reduces drama. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Yes, without a doubt. I've seen plenty of Bwilkins' work at WP:WQA; so, even without the NHL or Trinidad and Tobago work, I'm confident that his/her maturity, common sense, and level headed approach to Wikipedia will bring us a strong net positive in the end. As Sheffield mentions, "reduces drams", and I'm all for that! — Ched :  ?  16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Per SheffieldSteel.--Giants27 ^T/C 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Per SheffieldSteel, my nom above, and may I add resourceful. Padillah (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support I can be a bit of a hot head sometimes, and BMW's friendly comments to me in the past have led me to take a step back from conflicts and reflect on a more constructive approach. The difs below demonstrate that he is prone to get a bit prickly in tense situations, but on balance he does more to keep the peace here than I or many other admins do. A net positive by far. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Weak Support The diffs pointed out in the oppose section are rather unsettling, but these edits were all made roughly all about 7 months ago. Bwilkins has done a significant amount of excellent for the project and I believe that in 7 months, Bwilkins has perhaps changed for the better. I am certainly willing to give this user another chance to improve. Regards, Fastily (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support, a single questionable event six months ago does not particularly trouble me. No evidence user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

   Assuming we are talking about the same incident, it was two months ago, not six. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Assume the presence of a belly button. I acknowledge the opposition, but remain unpersuaded. In general, I feel that Bwilkins can be trusted to use the tools properly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support. This candidate is willing to roll up his sleeves (or hold his nose) and get involved in the drama side of Wikipedia, and he overwhelmingly shows good judgment. I do see the edits that are causing concern, but given the sheer amount of drama he's seen and tried to help with, they're a tiny fraction of the total.

   We have hundreds of vandal-fighting admins but relatively few drama-defusing ones, so I think it's particularly important to support Bwilkins.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Support No concerns. tempodivalse [☎] 23:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support The high quality of Bwilkins' total contributions to Wikipedia outweigh the very occasional lapses of insouciance being overemphasized by the other side of the debate. I have no problems with his work. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Heaven forbid the candidate have a personality. I see no reason not to trust Bwilkins with the bit. Tan | 39 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support I think he'll do a fine job as Admin despite his human qualities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Trust; it is all about trust. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support. Admins are not required to be all chipper all the time. So what if he's a little curmudgeonly every once in a while...who isn't? --Smashville^talk 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. May not make a difference, but I still support. I read the negative comments provided by some of the people who opposed, and they do not trouble me at all. People lose their temper from time to time. No big deal. Orane (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    Your support vote is questioning to me. I would like to know how it isn't "a big deal" if an admin loses his temper? As an admin, a user has to act professional, and if an admin loses his temper, especially against a new user, he could scare that newbie away from editing. Can you show me a situation where his temper actually helped a situation? Tavix |  Talk  01:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    I've never said that temper helps a situation. My exact point was that we are all human, and we lose our temper from time to time. A few instances of this doesn't mean he's a bad editor or would make a bad admin. Perusing someone's edit summary to emphasize five edits where we feel he wasn't nice enough shouldn't tarnish two years of hard work on Wikipedia; those five edits should not characterize the editor. Orane (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

17. Support. Bwilkins stepped in to help resolve some very sticky situations that I was facing and the professionalism of Bwilkins was much appreciated. This is a person with the patience to deal with a highly charged situation and do so promptly and with professionalism. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
18. BMW: You screwed up. You actually did a lot of hard, useful work in a very contentious, and very thankless, area. You should have racked up 5000 AWB edits and hung out at AfD, chiming in on obvious cases, instead. That way you would have burnished your reputation and not made any enemies. Of course, you wouldn't have been NEARLY as much help to the project that way, but the number one criterion for adminship on en:wp is how well you play the game... (play it safe and don't make any waves), not how helpful to the project you are. Drop, and give us 10,000 meaningless edits with Twinkle as penance. Oh ya... Strongest possible support. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    Fuck yeah! Orane (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

19. Support Sure we need admins to be civil, but I'd much rather we got fully rounded people who are what they seem than people who put on a veneer of civility to get through RFA. Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - per Lar. You shouldn't be denied adminship just because you have pissed off some people. You've many positive edits to WP. AdjustShift (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Quite frankly, we don't expect admins to be perfect, we expect them to be good enough. Sure, if you dig up a few diffs and spin them the right way, you can create a caricature that makes a person look horrible. Even there, most of Cool3's diffs don't strike me as evidence of anything problematic. Looking at the body of his work at WQA over the last year, I'm very impressed. I think that BWilkins is clearly not only good enough, he's actually a very good candidate. More than that, in my opinion, he's someone who's willing to listen to advice, he's someone who seeks out advice...in other words, he's exactly what we want of an admin. Without hesitation, I support. Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support, decent bloke, open to constructive criticism, seems to have plenty of time and energy for the project. Where he has ventured an opinion on the noticeboards it has been worth reading, and enough of the human side comes out to persuade me that what you see is what you get, this is not someone playing out a role or persona. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
23. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support This is not how I would have expected this to go. Most of the time I see BMW on the drama boards it isn't because he is lurking (of course that is usually why I am there) but because some issue on WQA has brought him there. And a number of times I have seen him there he has offered some opinion or proposed some solution that has rankled me. In fact, I have found myself remarking "Who is this guy, and how the hell did he become an admin?!" But most of those cases I settled down and determined that he made a compelling case and (important to me) didn't fill up the page with useless pap--as Guy says, when he made a comment it was worth reading. He makes mistakes. he holds opinions on things (and has even voiced them before getting "tenure"). He settles disputes. Also, per Lar. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support From the stream of concerns I thought BMW must have been using Cesar’s technique at WQA. What I found was a member of the community who was willing to try and help resolve disputes whenever possible. The problem is that when the conflict turns out to be a slugfest of professional wrestlers, everyone, including the ref. is fair game. BMW has in fact been less than gracious as he avoids the verbal head butts…go figure? I have not been here long at Wikipedia and am not sure how much the project pays for someone to moderate at WQA, but it must be a great deal for him to hang in there. There are plenty of links for all to explore, but use of a tool here might put the occasional wrestling matches into better perspective. BMW has met my opinion of what is needed in an Admin. I want to personally thank him for his kindness to our sorely missed Teenly. Unfortunately, it is not always clear until after the fact, how important it can be to welcome a new user, encourage them and let them know that they are an important part of this project. Thank you BMW--Preceding unsigned comment 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong support Even if you're a saint 99% of the time you'll invariably screw up occasionally if you spend enough time in the contentious thankless area of conflict resolution and give enough diffs for someone to pounce on. I think BMW would be an exemplary admin and am not convinced at all by the opposers. (Also per Guy and Lar) henrik•talk 06:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
27. support JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Strong support for good sense, helpfulness and general wisdom. Per henrik, have to accept that this is a 99% record rather than showing infallibility, but a little more caution can be learnt, the generally exemplary work shows a great base for that relatively minor improvement. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support  User is a strong contributor to and defender of Wikipedia. --StaniStani  16:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support :) . Yagsian Asked (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I am quite impressed with your work at WP:WQA and find you to be someone worthy of the admin flag. Basket of Puppies 06:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Perhaps the unseemly saga described by Goodmorningworld below was out of character, but it happened too recently, to be dismissed as such. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The tone of some of his comments is a little troubling. [1] "Wow you egg him on, then seem surprised that he got a little upset? " It's not egregious, but it's not a great comment. This is another impolite comment, with a highly uncivil edit summary [2] directed at a good editor. This is another uncivil remark in the same discussion [3] (this was a while back though). Another unpleasant exchange [4]. [5]: Another rather unpleasant edit summary "response to discorteous reply" (is that really necessary?), also in that diff: "a cursory glace at which will speak volumes of his misuse of Huggle and misunderstanding of policy". That seems rather harsh and unnecessary. [6] More borderline rudeness. I'd expect a better record of civility out of someone who works at WP:WQA and expects to do so as an admin. On the AfD front, I'm finding a lot of closes as "no consensus" which isn't a problem in and of it itself, but I'd rather see an admin close those. Per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, non admins really shouldn't be closing controversial AfDs. Furthermore, as a regular editor, it seems that it would be more useful to provide an opinion and work towards consensus than make a non-admin no consensus closure(for example). He's had several non-admin closures challenged at DRV, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artivist Film Festival & Awards (ultimately closed as no consensus). What bothers me most about his AfD record is that I've been through the contribs all the way back to January 1, and while I've found a number of non-admin closures, I can't find a single instance of actual participation in an AfD discussion. I'd like to support, but I'm just finding too many diffs that bother me. Cool3 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   "speak volumes of his misuse of Huggle" is "rather harsh and unnecessary"? Wow, OK. Padillah (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm much more bothered by the edit summary "response to discorteous reply" combined with that comment. It's not some sort of horrible incivility from Bwilkins but it's impolite and unnecessary. There's no reason to be so harsh to someone, and it's a failure of WP:AGF. Cool3 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose The diffs provided by Cool3 and Goodmorningworld's comment show that his way of speaking is way over "saying too outspoken" and breach our incivility policy. Calling a name like "useless editor"[7] to Collectonian (talk · contribs) is totally inappropriate and against his own preaches to editors at WQA.--Caspian blue 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I would appreciate you looking at a) how far back that incident was, the genesis of it, and the discussions that Collectonian and I have had in support of her work since. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose Per the neutral comment by Goodmorningworld. America69 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - doesn't handle criticism well. [8] PhilKnight (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Goodness me, candidate is not perfect, oppose. </sarcasm> That diff really doesn't look all that bad. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   His response to Q6 blames everyone but himself, which only confirms what I've said. PhilKnight (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose Switch to neutralHave to be honest, some of GMW's diffs cause me concern.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not going to say i'm not still concerned, but I'm moving to neutral on further consideration.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose Needs a few months more experience. -download | sign! 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Bwilkins has been editing for 12 months, for what it's worth. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   3+ years actually, but more heavily in the last year. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Alright, thanks for the clarification. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Name appears too frequently at ANI where I feel his interjections are unhelpful at times. Smacks of someone out to get adminship, rather than do the best for the project, and the nomination acceptance statement above is grounds for a strong oppose on its own, it's a while since I've seen such sickly sweet self serving nonsense. Nick (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   A little AGF please - I'm a journalist by trade (as you would know if you read my userpage) so I tend to do things with the occasional written flourish and you'll also know that I had to be somewhat convinced to accept nomination for RfA (if you read my talkpage). I signed up to Wikipedia to help the project, and I continue to do so, and will always continue to do so - nothing "self-serving nonsense" about that. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   That'll be the userpage that you can't reach through your signature I presume. If so, yes, I notice one small userbox halfway down the page saying you're a journalist or professional writer. I don't understand what relevance it has with regards to my comment, are you saying that your "occasional written flourishes" always have to be at ANI, or are uncontrollable or something ? I feel, from looking through your contributions and, I have to say, largely from personal memory, you comment at ANI all too often and that your comments there are often unhelpful or supplementary; in essence, many of your contributions at ANI have been unnecessary. If you feel the need to write, could you not do so somewhere else where unnecessary comments don't serve to destabilise a situation ?

   I don't understand why I should have to subdue or withhold my thoughts on your suitability for adminship because of AGF. I don't doubt that you're posting comments at ANI in the hope that you improve a situation, but I feel that the opposite occurs and your comments are at times, unhelpful. I can only make a decision on how to comment with the information I have available, from what I see, I believe you're rather keen to gain adminship, the acceptance is the epitomy of self serving nonsense (in my opinion, of course), you've got the usual "I wannabee an admin" userbox on your user page, you post at ANI more frequently than many, many administrators and, in my mind, most tellingly, you respond to people commenting on your RfA in such a way that makes me feel you value being an admin more than you value comments left by other users. If you genuinely have the best interests of the project at heart, you would just sit back and watch this RfA from a distance. Nick (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I appreciate that Nick - however, if some people are going to take portions out of context, or indeed make a few things up completely, then I do feel I need to provide clarification. Indeed, I would prefer to walk away from this page completely, except to thank a few people at a later date. I would do that, if it wasn't for the occasional out-of-context comment that is then being highly used against me. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

   If he didn't want to be an admin, why would he be doing this? It's not like wanting to be an admin is some sort of cardinal sin, or something. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Wanting to be an administrator is bad, but even if a candidate will do a decent job, I could just certainly support, or at least, not comment on an RfA. Wanting to be an administrator and looking like you might not do a good job - that's a problem. Nick (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   How on earth is it bad to want to be an administrator? I know that personally it would be much more efficient for me and mean that I could do things myself without having to get others involved to do things for me - is that such a bad thing? Surely wanting to serve the community is a good thing, and not a bad thing (unless we are talking about people who see administratorship as some sort of goal, or vessel for social elitism)? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

   Obviously I'm not Nick, so this is only my best guess, but I think you hit the nail on the head with the addendum in brackets at the end of your comment. To quote one J.K. Rowling, "Those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it". That being said, should I be interpreting Nick's comments correctly, I can't say I am terribly comfortable ascribing that to every single candidate who seeks adminship by way of trying to act like one; that would be drawing the line very close to where one would get a dose of deja vu, no? :) Although, in this case, Nick did make the point that his comments were unhelpful in addition to appearing as if they were furthering the candidate's ambitions towards adminship. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose I'm not convinced that he would not abuse the tools, seeing his remarks linked above and a not-so-extensive edit history and number. Timmeh! 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose per this. Your comments in a public forum were horrendous, and your defence of them showed a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of the BLP policy. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Direct quoting of sources is against BLP? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

   Which reliable source were you quoting from when you described the subject as a "messed-up idiot", exactly? Daniel (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

   That kind of comment gets made in conference rooms at newspapers every day. Another reason why only Article pages and Article Talk pages should be searchable by search engines. All internal Wikipedia stuff, while remaining accessible to the public, should be protected from indexing by the use of __NOINDEX__.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose Concerns about temperament, as described above. Cirt (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Nick and Goodmorningworld.PerfectProposal 01:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose for the same reasons as Daniel. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose users above pointed out the diffs that troubled me before I posted them. not exactly the cool head I would prefer. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Personal recollections of the individual were not favorable and I was not predisposed to want to support. However, I intended to stay neutral until I read the neutral and saw things there and things above which concern me. I cannot trust this user with the tools nor his understanding of our principles here. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose, not impressed by the diffs posted elsewhere in this section. Bwilkins does not always communicate civilly, which is a must for an administrator - they are likely to get into disputes, and they are there to settle them, not provoke them further. Robofish (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Oppose The civility comments by Cool3 and Goodmorningworld are concerning. While most of your work at WQA is stellar, if you want to be an admin in dispute resolution you have to be less biased and much more civil. The answers to questions 1 and 3 (both dealing with conflicts in the past) are in a haughty tone that isn't befitting of an admin working with dispute resolution. Also, as noted above, some of your AfD closings were much too contentious for a non-admin to handle. One such close was overturned at DRV and several weeks later another went there where you closed an 8-6 debate per WP:SNOW. These two concerns put together lead me to question your judgement and at this point in time I can't trust you to make sound AfD closes or neutral blocks. ThemFromSpace 05:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

    I have never closed ANY AfD as WP:SNOW, and it wasn't overturned, it went from "keep" to "no consensus to delete". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose - per Nick (although I don't agree with his description "sickly sweet self serving nonsense", I do see what he means) and per Daniel. Your "messed-up idiot" remark on the ANI board last month is beyond the pale. Your defense that others have said it as well is, in my opinion, extremely poor. Furthermore I find the tone of a lot of your replies, both on ANI and your Talkpage, harsh and bordering on arrogant ("It disgusts me that you even have the nerve to suggest..." for example). That's not the kind of wording I expect from an admin. If these are "written flourishes" as well, I strongly suggest you 'flourish down' a little.  Channel R   10:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Weak oppose – a good user, but some of the talk page comments are troubling. TheAE talk/sign 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Hell no He displayed HUGE civility issues during my only encounter with him. see here, here and an AN/I I filed. I got into a little edit war with him, and although I apologized afterward for my part in it, he refused to apologize to me and told me to stop. diff. This is behavior that should not be displayed in an admin and such behavior towards other people could scare off people. Tavix |  Talk  00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    It seems you've paraphrased a bit here... he never said "fuck off", at least as far as I can tell? –xeno ^talk 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    He mentioned it in an edit summary once, it wouldn't be found in the diff. Tavix |  Talk  01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

    Not able to provide this ref on Tavix' behalf as I have never told anyone to "fuck off" either in an edit, or in an edit summary - BMW

    I just checked all of BMW's edits, and couldn't find a single instance hime telling anyone to fuck off in an edit summary (looked for "fuck", and only found it in a few, chiefly in a topic name he didn't pick and then another usage that was a false-positive for profanity). Please provide the diff or drop the claim. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

    I thought I remembered him saying that, but I can't find the diff so I'll just retract that word in my previous post. Even without it, I still feel he is an uncivil user and the proof is in the diffs I had provided. Tavix |  Talk  21:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

21. Oppose My own interactions with this user have been mixed. I acknowledge their good faith attempts to help but feel they are not yet ready to become an admin, per this, this and this original edit which started the conversation, where he accused me of mounting a jihad because I was trying to get a user to remove an attack link from their user page and later evinced that it is ok to link to an attack page to defend oneself. Wrong approach, wrong word. Albeit that it was 6 months ago, and kudos for good intentions, but I need to see evidence of real learning from that incident. Offering to "mediate" after using such inflammatory language, then closing and archiving with the comment "Good luck with your future interactions with the human race" is unlikely to be a productive approach. Sorry again. --John (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose Some of the highlighted comments, especially the tone of them cause me concern. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Strong Oppose I have really bad memories of the episode when I met you. I do not want to insist on it as many things have already been said and as the trend of this election is unlikely to change. Even though I'm pretty sure you perfectly understand my opinion, I'm ready to develop if needed. Clem23 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

    Clem23 refers to this - BMW

24. Oppose Based on interaction with this editor on ANI. My opinion only. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
25. I wanted to support this, but looking at some of the comments you have made brought up in diffs is quite a downer. As an administrator, you represent all of Wikipedia--this means that any flippant remark (and especially comments made specifically to insult) will reflect upon Wikipedia as a whole. Malinaccier (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Strong oppose per Daniel and BLP issue. Don't use en.wiki as a vehicle for your personal insults against people with bios on en.wiki. --KP Botany (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Oppose Serious concerns about temperament Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose: My question above was replied to in detail, but the problem I was bothered with was merely confirmed. The use of foul language or bluntness per se was not the issue; what bothered me was that I was told to suck it up while the other party got away without barely a hint of a reprimand despite repeated auto-reverts, ownership behavior, obstructive argumentativeness and some very personal accusations against me. I'll agree that there was a consensus against my complaints on the subpage where I tried to deal with the dispute, but I found most of it exceedingly personal hostility and almost none of it seemed like particularly valid criticism. Most of it appeared to center on the fact that the user I was in dispute with should be considered permanently immune from blame because of previous work on articles and an oddly brittle emotional state. Anyone who sides so unequivocally with a problematic user because they cry and whine loud enough is in my opinion not fit for adminship. Peter ^Isotalo 11:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose per BLP issues. Civility is also a problem. I am willing to support a future RfA should you change substantially.  Marlith (Talk)  18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose per --Marlith Arctic ^Fox 09:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Going neutral until I can do a thorough review on contribs and ask so questions if necessary (just don't want to forget about this one). Good, straightforward answers, although i prefer to see more audited article work and i'm not sure the rationale for needing the tools is that strong (we need smart, calm people on ANI, not more people will block buttons). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tentative neutral I'm not sure yet (more question/answers would be good for decision making), but the candidate's responses and comments on ANI/WQA seem to me like crossing between straightforward and (too) outspoken, so I have a slight concern about it.--Caspian blue 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (Moved to Oppose)--Caspian blue 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Neutral Until a few months ago, I had BMW's name on my mental list as the editor to whom I would give my most automatic Support ever in his upcoming RfA. There is no question that candidate possesses intelligence and maturity, qualities that are sorely lacking in most of the people coming here asking to be made admin. His conflict resolution work at WP:WQA, using nothing but the power of reasoned argument, has been mostly top-notch. There, BMW has shown what an editor can accomplish even without any of the admin buttons, simply by talking to people, respecting them as human beings, dialing down drama, and even using humor when appropriate.
   Except… for his inexplicable, out-of-character actions at WP:WQA and WP:ANI regarding user:Greg L and user:Tony1.
   At WP:WQA he kept open a stale complaint against Greg L for far too long, and when that didn't bring about the results that BMW wanted, he recruited one of Wikipedia's most block happy admins known for being quick to block established editors to weigh in on his side, with a predictable outcome: she blocked Greg L. Then when Tony1 showed in on that admin's page to defend Greg, and user:Daedalus969 went into a ballistic trajectory of frenzied rage in support of the admin, BMW did not ask Daedalus to shut up. Instead, he tried his damnedest to get Tony1 blocked. (Diffs for the above on request.)
   The experience has left me with lingering bitterness about BMW. Because Tony1 and Greg L are Wikifriends of mine, I feel unable to give a fair and unbiased opinion here, hence my Neutral. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I vaguely remember this conflict but could you provide at least a begining diff to help me research it? Thanks. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Will do, give me some time to do the legwork, please. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Archive of first WQA thread.

   Request for closure by Goodmorningworld does not get heeded.

   Archive of second WQA thread.

   Request for closure by Goodmorningworld in second WQA thread also does not get heeded.

   BMW rejects request for closure: "Not likely for a long time. Sarcasm used to undermine someone's input (and even to discourage it) is uncivil. All the rhetoric in trying to defend such actions are really allowing them to dig a big deep hole ."

   Out of Wikipedia's 1600-strong admin corps, BMW turns to one with a rep for blocking established editors.

   BMW starts a dialog on "Civility and Sarcasm" on GMW's user page.

   GMW points out to BMW inconsistency between BMW's professed attitude to sarcasm and his own employment of it here; there is no reply from BMW.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Hostile, possibly threatening comments from BMW directed at two users who showed up on blocking admin's page to register their objections.

   The same two editors are subsequently dragged before WP:ANI. When they try to defend themselves, BMW makes this comment but later, to his credit, strikes it through.

   In short, my impression was that BMW was painting targets on the backs of Greg L and Tony1, for reasons unknown to me.

   Note to editors who are opposing based on my diffs: There is a reason why I am in the Neutral column, not in the Oppose column. I believe that BMW is a cut above not just the average Wikipedian but the average WP admin, I believe that the good he has accomplished to date far outweighs the bad. Please take the time to research the candidate and please do not decide based only on the issue raised by me, thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Update I am very surprised to see this RfA progressing as it has. I expected this to sail through with 90 percent support and merely wanted to get in a word edgewise, as a lone voice in the wilderness dissenting and/or as a critic reminding a victorious BMW where he should improve. It troubles me that so many of the Opposers are citing my diffs, and if this continues I may have to research and post a list of diffs that shows BMW performing good offices by mediating between users. This shows that I do not understand Wikipedia as well as I thought I did. In particular, we have a problem if we are promoting users (or their alternate sock puppet accounts) who have never, ever been in conflict once as if that were a badge of honor.
   Conflict mediation is inherently bound to annoy some people. Even my complaint above is necessarily subjective, colored as it is by my Wikifriendships with certain of the users. This has set me to thinking that in the future I should automatically oppose each and every editor who comes here asking for adminship if they have never been in any conflicts. We do not want spineless molluscs or flagrant phonies as admins, or do we. There is a vast demand for dispute resolution going unmet, and it can only be filled by editors who are willing to brave the hail of brickbats and go where it is dangerous to tread.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   I did want to add, however, that this situation as a whole is an example of me asking someone else for advice. I did not ask for the users in question to be blocked, I asked an admin to have a second set of eyes on the situation - I would of course AGF and never acuse an admin of being block happy :-). (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I believe that people should not be judged over single incidents which may be out of character, but do believe that the above incident is of concern. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral per Goodmorningworld. My own interactions with this user have been mixed. I acknowledge their good faith attempts to help but feel they are not yet ready to become an admin. --John (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral for now - Like Goodmorningworld, BMW was on my list of people to support as soon as he decided to request adminship, and looking back through the WP:ANI archives, I agreed with the majority of his comments. However, I found the diff we've already heard about and your later response to Risker's warning to be troubling. Not enough for me to switch to oppose, but enough to keep me from supporting at this time. Kcowolf (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

   Also noting the diff Cool3 cited above with the "sick of useless editors" summary and the summary of your edit to your own comment above. Before you edited it, I saw it as something wrote out of frustration, but nothing about it gave me any reason to think there was sarcasm in it. As one who read it differently from the way you say it was meant, I find your edit summary condescending. I agree with neuro said (on your talk page) about that comment. You do a lot of great work on Wikipedia; I hope you continue to do so, and I certainly believe you'll be an admin in the future, but things like this convinced me not to support this time. Kcowolf (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral probably won't misuse the tools, but the diffs highlighted by the opposers give me some pause but not enough to actually oppose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Neutral. Unable to determine whether to support or not on the available evidence. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Now happy to go neutral, some positives and some negatives. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral Switched from oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Not sure Looks good except for the convincing arguments of the opposers.--Res2216firestar 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Neutral. There will always be exceptions, and always unhappy users when people try to effectively resolve disputes; most of my interactions with him have been positive, and I would've supported given his general good work at WQA. What has stopped me from supporting was solely the BLP issue (raised in the oppose section by Daniel) - the comment BMW made on-wiki was troublingly inappropriate and counterproductive, given the spirit of BLP policy and how complaints about BLPs should be handled. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Neutral Neurolysis described my interpretation of Goodmorningworld's unsettling diffs. I would never oppose based on one situation, but it can keep me from supporting at this time. hmwithτ 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Neutral per Res2216firestar. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 14:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.